- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42824 WP No. 28813 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 28813 OF 2025 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: BASAVESHWARA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION A UNIT OF SRI TONTADARYA VIDYAPEETH GADAG - 582101 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHIVANAND SHANKARAPPA PATANASHETTI S/O SHANKARAPPA AGED 62 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AKASH B SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE (NCTE SRC) G-7, SECTOR -10, DWARKA NEW DELHI - 110075 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR AND CONVENER SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (UNIVERSITY AND GENERAL 1) VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR BHEEDI, BENGALURU - 560001 Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42824 WP No. 28813 of 2025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VINOD KUMAR.M, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.MANJUNATH.K, HCGP FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08/07/2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN F.NO. SRC/ NCTE/ APSO1778/ B.ED./ 465TH MTG./ KA/ 2025/ 151369 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE SRC TAKEN IN ITS 465TH MINUTES MEETING HELD ON 01/07/2025 PERTAINING TO FILE NO.APOS01778 OF THE PETITIONER INSTITUTION, THEREBY REJECTING THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25/02/2025 AND AFFIRMING THE WITHDRAWAL ORDER ISSUED BY THE SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE (SRC) DATED 29/07/2021(VIDE ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “1) Quash the impugned order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 in F.No.SRC/NCTE/APSO1778/B.ED.465thMtg./KA/2025/151 369 vide Annexure-A, considering the decision of the SRC taken in its 465th minutes meeting held on 01.07./2025 pertaining to File No.APOS01778 of the petitioner Institution, thereby rejecting the representation sent by the petitioner dated 25.02.2025 and affirming the withdrawal order issued by the Southern Regional Committee (SRC) dated 29.07.2021 (vide Annexure-B). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42824 WP No. 28813 of 2025 2) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner Institution dated 25.02.2025 vide Annexure-D, seeking reconsideration of the recognition to start B.Ed. Course and to pass orders in accordance with law, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the recognition of the petitioner for B.Ed. programme having been withdrawn, Southern Regional Council of the NCTE, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.200108/2023, which was disposed of by this Court vide final order dated 30.01.2025 (Annexure-G), which reads as under: “The petitioners have sought for writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of respondent No.1 withdrawing the recognition in terms of Resolution No.31 at the 400th meeting of the Southern Regional Committee (SRC) of respondent No.1 held on 13th and 14th of July, 2021. The petitioners have also sought for writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 to consider the representations dated 05.02.2022 and 27.05.2022, by which they informed that all the deficiencies which were the reason for withdrawal of the recognition, were rectified. 2. The petitioners contend that they were running a college that offered Bachelor of Education with a permitted intake capacity of 100 seats in two units for the academic - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42824 WP No. 28813 of 2025 year 2004-2005. The petitioners contend that a notice was issued by the respondent No.1 accusing the petitioners of not furnishing a compliance report. The petitioners submitted a reply which was considered and respondent No.1 resolved at a meeting held on 13/14.07.2021 that the petitioners have failed to comply seven deficiencies and hence proceeded to withdraw the recognition granted to the petitioners. 3. The petitioners submitted a reply dated 05.02.2022 to the respondent No.1 enclosing therein certain documents to prove that they had rectified all deficiencies and requested the respondent No.1 to continue the recognition. The petitioners contend that a further representation was made on 27.05.2022. It is claimed that these representations were not considered and therefore the petitioners are before this Court seeking for appropriate direction to not only quash the order withdrawing the recognition, but also to direct the respondent No.1 to consider the representations mentioned above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in similar circumstances, the Delhi High Court in W.P.No.12465/2021 had quashed the withdrawal of the recognition and therefore the petitioners are entitled to similar treatment. He further contends that the petitioners have complied with all the concerns raised by respondent No.1 and hence, the respondent No.1 is bound to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42824 WP No. 28813 of 2025 reconsider the representations in accordance with law and to continue the recognition that was granted earlier. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the order of withdrawal of recognition has to be challenged in an appeal before the appellate authority of NCTE and therefore this writ petition is not maintainable. 6. He however contends that if the petitioners have already complied with all the concerns raised by respondent No.1 and if the petitioners have submitted any representations and if the petitioners are entitled for reconsideration of their representations, the same would be considered in accordance with law. 7. If the petitioners have failed to address and redress the deficiencies pointed out by respondent No.1, there is no error in respondent No.1 exercising jurisdiction to withdraw the recognition granted. However the petitioners have now submitted a representation stating that they have complied with all the deficiencies pointed out by respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 could take into consideration the fact that the petitioners have established an institution by incurring expenditure and therefore, they cannot be perpetually deprived the permission to conduct the course. If the petitioners have complied with the deficiencies or the concerns raised by the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 is bound to consider the representations of the petitioners in accordance with law and if need be by conducting an inspection. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42824 WP No. 28813 of 2025 8. In that view of the matter, writ petition is allowed in part. 9. The impugned order withdrawing the recognition of the petitioners is upheld. However, respondent No.1 is directed to reconsider the representations of the petitioners dated 05.02.2022 and 27.05.2022. 10. In order to enable the respondent No.1 to consider the representations, the petitioners are directed to furnish a fresh set of the representations along with all the accompanying documents to respondent No.1 within a period of one month from today. The respondent No.1 shall consider the same and dispose off the representations in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter.” 3. In pursuance of the same, the NCTE, respondent No.1 re- considered the claim of the petitioner and proceeded to re-iterate the withdrawal of recognition primarily on the ground that the intake of the petitioner – Institution was 100 and therefore, the strength of the teaching staff of the petitioner being 10 was insufficient to meet the requirement of 100 students which was the intake of the petitioner. In this context, it is submitted that the petitioner has been granted and had been taking only 50 students by way of intake and not 100 and the available 10 teaching staff approved by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42824 WP No. 28813 of 2025 the University as per the requirement of NCTE was sufficient to obtain recognition and conduct the course by the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the NCTE does not dispute that for an institution with an annual intake of 50 students, teaching staff of 10 was sufficient to meet the requirements as per NCTE Regulation 2014 and that the petitioner has been granted permission to run the College with an annual intake of 50 students. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.200108/2023, dated 30.01.2025 and the material on record, which indicates that the annual intake of the petitioner – Institution in one unit is only 50 students in relation to which the petitioner has sufficient teaching staff, which are 10 in number, I am of the considered opinion that the first respondent clearly fell in error in affirming the withdrawal order passed by the SRC, which deserves to be set aside. 6. In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of equally efficacious and alternative remedy by way of an appeal is concerned, having regard to the fact that the petitioner - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42824 WP No. 28813 of 2025 had earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.200108/2023, coupled with the fact that the first respondent has affirmed the earlier order of the SRC on improper and arbitrary reasons, the said contention cannot be accepted. 7. In the result, the following order: (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Annexure ‘A’ dated 08.07.2025 and Annexure ’B’ dated 29.07.2025, both passed by the first respondent, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39